After a pour fifth place finish in the Iowa caucuses, Texas Gov. Rick Perry will return home to reassess his campaign. That’s usually code for dropping out, but a final decision hasn’t been made.
The signs of a possible drop out were evident as soon as I met with a couple of Perry campaign staff after the returns started coming in. One simply said “We did it Campaign 101. The most precinct captains. Strong ground game. Message. I don’t know.” They had 500 volunteers from 32 states trained up and scattered all over Iowa in the closing days, working long hard hours since Boxing Day to cover just about every inch of the state.
There was also, at that moment, a serious discussion going on upstairs in the hotel between Gov. Perry, his family and a few close advisers regarding the campaign’s future. I asked if a drop out was possible, and the long time adviser said he didn’t know. This particular staffer always knows. Bad sign.
In the Perry event room itself, the mood wasn’t exactly down or up. It was hard to read. Maybe a muted defiance laced with disbelief. Rick Perry had never lost an election before. He was 9-0. One caucus surrogate told a pair of others to “Buckle up, because it’s going to be a bumpy ride.”
A few minutes before Gov. Perry returned to the stage with his family to address his supporters, the big screen flared to life with Perry’s ads and videos, one after the other, strong and positive ads. The mood in the room lifted, and two videos — one featuring war veterans supporting Perry, and the other featuring the governor’s wife Anita — drew sustained cheers. When Perry read a letter from a supporter who had “visited 1000 homes” to support the governor and then mentioned his willingness to work for him in South Carolina, the crowd roared. That seemed be a hint.
Then came the line that took the air out of the room: “With the voters decision tonight in Iowa, I have decided to return to Texas, assess the results of tonight’s caucus, and determine if there is a path forward for myself in this race.”
A woman in the crowd near me reacted, “There is!”
This both makes me sad and loath the quiz-show debate process even more. I still say Perry would make the best president of anyone in the group of candidates, but, well, one doesn’t usually “reassess” if one plans to fight on. It’s a shame records don’t seem to matter anymore, and it’s madness that an archaic caucus process attended by very few voters has the influence it does.
*sigh*
I like Rick Perry & he is a good Texan governor. I agree w/many of his positions. He is not ready to be president until he has a command of the English language in public. This country can not afford to have another George Bush who fumbles his words or another term of Obama w/his teleprompter(He sounds like an idiot w/out it.). This country is entering rough waters internationally; we need a president who is committed to ideas that got him elected & clearly communicates them to friend & foe alike.
In October 2012, there will be 3 debates between Obama and whoever the GOP nominee is.
And those debates, the GOP nominee can’t complain about or duck. Whoever the GOP nominee is had better be prepared. Because a poor performance in Presidential debates has hurt candidates before: Ford, Dukakis, McCain are three examples.
So it’s a good thing that we saw how poor a debater Perry is now, before he has to debate Obama. Just one bad gaffe in those debates could cost Perry the election and give Obama the win. Since the debates occur only 3 weeks or so before Election Day, there will be no time for a candidate who stumbles in the debates to recover.
Perry was very gracious in defeat. He is a good man and most of us couldn’t have done any better, but the situation calls for the best candidate we can muster. If he drops out, he will be doing the right thing. The party is tired of candidates from Texas who can’t seem to carry their own water.
Thanks so much for your insightful reporting!
Unfortunately an effective exercise of the Presidency by 2013, especially with the degree of devastation the current Administration is inflicting, will almost certainly sorely need an individual with experience as an Executive and an existing knowledge of the weaknesses and subversion’s already existing within the Government. It cries for someone with inner strengths beyond those that may belatedly be generated by Tea Party demonstrations. The elite establishment candidates are all too prone to tinker around the edges, paper over problems and kick the can down the road. They acquiesce to “climate changers” and reflect on the extent of the funds to deploy to address it. They are all too prone to accept “Big Government Conservatism.” The candidates with no executive experience and expertise in specialized areas, take time to get up to any reasonable speed and one is left guessing as to their inclinations once they arrive.
In my opinion we need a Leader who is able to make effective choices, stake claims based on fundamental principles, press for reforms when the time is at hand, and resisting capitulation even when it is politically expedient to do so.
Unfortunately it sounds like that person is leaving the room. I personally don’t see another that begins to fill the bill.
Looks like the establishment will be designing the peoples fates.
At least (if worst comes to worst for the rest of us) your State will have the good fortune of having Governor Perry at your helm, continuing to support Texas success.
JGwen,
You have expressed my sentiments better than I could have done it myself. Thank you. I regret that our country will not have the knowledge and experience of a fine administrator.
Governor Perry may have stumbled with words but his message and his proposals were clear to anyone who listened. I feel that I know more about his plans for America’s future than I do of any the other candidates.
It’s for the best, Perry doesn’t have the brains to handle the top job and is in over his head. Go back to Texas and get your house in order their.
” . . . get your house in order their [sic].”
Texas is doing just fine with Gov. Perry. Too bad that the rest of the country doesn’t have that advantage. If you had the brains to handle that, you wouldn’t make comments that are over your head.
Great points.
Texas provides an example of what can happen under strong but restrained leadership. Most states would gladly trade economies with Texas in an instant.
If the rest of the country was as much in order as TX, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. Oh well, at least he’ll be available for President of the Republic of Texas after Civil War II… which ORomney will guarantee us.
Dropping out now is weird. Iowa isn’t even a real primary. Iowa and NH haven’t been important in a GOP primary in decades. Those primaries were important to Romney because if he couldn’t win there, it raises questions about how he could win anyway. His supporters are fair-weather “inevitability” people who will flee him if he shows real weakness.
The first real battle is in South Carolina, and Perry’s got a solid shot there. Being behind in the polls belies the fickle nature of the polls this year. All Perry has to do is hang in until then.
Perry’s a good orator, has a decent chance of scooping up the conservative vote, and is sitting on a ton of cash from when he was the candidate of the moment. His bubble burst only because of debate performances– hardly disqualifying.
And, “Random Blowhard” (and from your punctuation and misspelling of “their” I’m assuming you’re Ezra Klein), Texas is a major economic success story, despite the blunders at the federal level. Perry’s got a great story to tell.
“Reassessing” now doesn’t seem smart to me. Does his polling suggest that SC isn’t a winnable primary? That’s the only way this would make sense to me.
Perry’s decision to drop out (a mere assumption at this point) will strike me as an indication that he was not all that serious. Could be that he has accepted the notion that he is not quite “ready for prime time.”
I sure wish RP would drop out, as the writing is on the wall now that he doesn’t have a chance (as if he ever did in the first place).
I suspect that the governor wanted to be in the comfort of his home to decide whether or not he felt it important to take part in the week-end debates. If he decides not to attend, he will close out his campaign. If he attends, it will mean that he will continue on to South Carolina. That is what I think.
Your moniker is appropriate. Actions speak louder than words. Perry’s actions and the resulting strong Texas economy during the Obama Depression speak for themselves. It is just too darn bad we pick slick talkers with outrageous backgrounds over candidates who have demonstrated deep integrity for their entire lives.
These days I am wondering if the creator of RomneyCare could possibly muster up the passion and committment to fight against and thereby defeat Obamacare? Seems the passion might be missing.
Perry may have had an excellent organization and ground game in Iowa, but his debate flubs, whether they were the result of pain medication or a lack of preparation, did him in.
Santorum is the flavor of the month, but it won’t carry him through tot he nomination. Plus, he seems to care more about bashing gays and stopping abortions than fixing our long term fiscal problems.
Romney? Why vote for Obama Lite when you can have the real thing?
I’m voting Gary Johnson for President. I may be tilting at windmills, but (silly me) I actually believe in the principles of individual liberty and limited government Republicans espouse. It’s too bad they nominate candidates who only pay them lip service…not just at the Presidential level, either.
Then you’re an Obama voter. There’s no other way to put it. You’re an Obama voter. If The Won is re-elected, you will be partly responsible. And I hope you realize that, every morning when you look in the mirror: “I am an Obama voter. I helped re-elect Obama.”
Unclutch your pearls and STFU, you useless waste of bandwidth.
It’s incontinent panic-stricken nimrods like you that have helped the RINOs run off every damn worthwhile candidate that ran or might have run. Go piss yourself in private and let the grown-ups try to figure out how to clean up your goddamn mess.
Blather all you want, I’m right, and you know I’m right. Your fevered imaginings aside, Gary Johnson will never be President. He will never gain one – not one – electoral vote. Not one. Never. He won’t be President.
The candidates will be Barack “The Won” Obama against whoever the GOP nominates. That’s it. You vote for one or the other. If you do otherwise you are effectively voting for the other side. Any protest vote for third-party candidates because a candidate isn’t “pure” enough is well beyond stupid; it’s borderline treasonous.
If your wonderfully electable Mr. Romney loses to Obama, it will be because of Mittbots and establishment types who ignored and insulted members of the base who have legitimate concerns about him. And these concerns are nothing new.
So if Willard loses the election, blame yourself or the other voters who nominated him…not me.
I’ve held my nose and voted for two Bushes, a Dole, and a McCain…so I’ve done my bit for the GOP. This time, they have to earn my vote. I guess that’s too much to ask for someone like you. That’s why you wind up with these squishes every four years. They know you’ll vote for anyone with an (R) after his name.
“Romney? Why vote for Obama Lite when you can have the real thing?”
Oh come on already. Romney may be a RINO but he is no Obama. Failure to vote for whomever is running against Obama is a vote for Obama. So take Animal’s advice next year if you fail to support the Republican nominee.
While Mr. Romney and his staff are due all congratulations for this eight vote victory, it does seem to me that perhaps the campaign song should be changed to “Can’t Buy Me Love” by the Beatles….
Having said that, I would personally like to encourage all the candidates to stay in as long as possible. This is not to say that they can win–but Abraham Lincoln did famously say that those who can’t skin can hold a leg, and it seems to me that taking one for the team and forcing a brokered convention–knowing full well that they will most likely not be the ultimate choice–is a worthy act. If nothing else, it would force “Mr. Electable” to realize his probationary, not conquering, status. If he wins nomination and office, so be it–but I think it would be useful for him to understand that he wasn’t exactly a first choice. He can win, but what he cannot do is banish the spirit that demands a restrained federal government and a society of law, order, and liberty. It will be useful for his supporters to realize that, and figure out Mitt Romney can adjust to it, not it to him.
With that being said, I still say fight on I and hope for a “miracle”. In 1775 a nation of three million somehow produced enough Jeffersons, Adamses, Washingtons, Hamiltons, Madison’s, et.al to create the entire thing from scratch, and in such a way that it has endured for over two hundred years. I refuse to believe that today, in a nation of three hundred million, we don’t have enough talent to sustain the thing. We do. What we need to do is stop playing by the normal rules, go find it, and deploy it. Never forget, you have to get the job done–first, foremost, last. Anything else that doesn’t do that is secondary.
Along those lines, I would have to strongly recommend that a plank be inserted in the platform expressly calling for the end of individual mandates vis a vis health insurance. Any problems Mitt Romney would have on this issue would be of his own doing–he willingly got himself into the mess, he should be the one to get himself out of it.
The absence of such a plank would be almost proof positive that when push comes to shove, those with the ability to affect affairs will always choose the option that embarrasses those in positions of power the least. As to whether this is supportive or destructive of foundations of liberty, I leave for the reader to decide.
Finally, I would like to point out that if Mitt Romney wins, mainly because the 75% not favoring him was never able to find the person they wanted, then in some sense it will be akin to a “hostile takeover” by a minority stockholder. If it happens by the rules, so be it. But there is nothing preventing folks from poison pilling the works, either now or later, if they feel this takeover is still not in the best interests of the “shareholders”.
I have no great heartburn with Mitt Romney becoming President (no great enthusiasm either, but no heartburn). I have great heartburn with the idea that after that, the GOP and the cause of classic liberalism/conservatism/liberty might come to mean only that which benefits Mitt Romney, and nothing else, because some politico doesn’t want dissent in the ranks because it makes the “great leader” look bad—and others roll over because they fear losing the White House more than they fear losing the principle.
Mitt Romney, should he achieve the nomination, can have the Presidency (if he can win it). But he cannot have the cause. It’s more important than he is.
Quite elegantly put.
Historian Barbara Tuchman, in her book The March of Folly, had an interesting slant on that. The geniuses among the Founders were relatively wealthy, with few exceptions. At that time in colonial America, there wasn’t much to do. So a high intellect was likely to gravitate toward anything new, intriguing, and intellectually challenging, if only for a way to pass the time — and the creation of a basis for a new nation met all three requirements.
Miss Tuchman’s notion could be right and it could be wrong — I think that covers all the possibilities — but either way, it certainly is different.
The probability of a brokered convention is maximized by a three-way race. Any more candidates and the conservatives get in each other’s way. Gingrich should tear down Romney as long as his money holds out, but then he needs to yield to Santorum. Perry is this year’s Fred Thompson, and he needs to get out ASAP.
Rick Perry is my favorite. And in my opinion he lost because nobody knows, how he intents to secure the border.
But losing in Iowa, doesn’t mean he should drop out. Neither Ron Paul or Rick Santorum are serious candidates. So in reality it’s a 3rd place. Mitt Romney will not get above 25%. So the way I see it is that in the end, the race will be between Gingrich and Perry – If Perry stays in the race, that is.
Perry was the top candidate until he flubbed a question about instate tuition for illegal immigrants. And the key words here are “illegal immigrants”. It looked like he was indifferent to the issue. All he has to do is make a statement on how he will secure the border (And I mean actually SECURE the border, not just tell us how he will do “more”). Then he’ll be in the top again again. And NO – the rest of the country doesn’t care how Rio Grand runs through Texas. Solve the problem.
And the other thing: Stop mentioning Texas every 2 seconds. You are running for president of the entire country, not just Texas. It reminds about how Giuliani kept mentioning 911 all the time.
If you are a native Texan as Perry is, it is not possible. And the rest of the country notices.
Despite Texas providing three presidents in the last 50 years or so, that is a profound problem any candidate from here must deal with.
“Nobody knows, how he intents to secure the border.”
Actually we do or should. The Governor has described it, an expansion of what is employed in Texas, and a description is on the State web site. Strategic fencing, more boots on the ground, more surveillance assets and rapid response teams, etc. Would be voters should be encouraged to do their homework.
“Stop mentioning Texas every 2 seconds.”
The Governor has substantially limited this, to his disadvantage IMO. The point is he has successful Executive Experience with exceptional results, a proof of the pudding so to speak, IN Texas. The track record is awesome! The track record is in TEXAS. For those who would want to check, they have to reference Texas data.
“Would be voters should be encouraged to do their homework”
I agree and in an ideal world, voters would do that.
Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world yet. So in the meantime he should do what is necessary to win.
“Strategic fencing, more boots on the ground, more surveillance assets and rapid response teams”. In my opinion that is not a good enough answer. How many boots? 5.000? 100.000? What kind of boots? Are we talking National Guard? INS? Strategic fencing where? How long? How wide? What type?
To me it sounds like he does not want to do anything spectacular, because if there is a long solid fence for instance, illegals would just cross over the Rio Grande. Which would be bad for Texas. And he cares more about Texas than the rest of the country.
In my judgement generic unspecific answers about border security will not get you the nomination this year. Either promise that you will solve the problem, whatever it takes. And give a specific quantifiable definition on what you consider a satisfactory result. Or say in specific quantities what you will do. And say it clearly enough so that everybody knows. Referring to a website about state legislation is not clear enough.
And again, Rick Perry is my guy at the moment. I just don’t see him winning right now.
“Perry’s a good orator”
REALLY? You know, I have YET to see that supposed skill from him and I’ve seen the man in action in person. In fact, when I was a P-5 delegate in Orlando ~ going in as a Perry supporter ~ I gave him two separate appearances as chances to make up for the ghastly debate performance, THINKING the man HAD to be something in person.
Terribly disappointed both times, when he had receptive audiences waiting to eat out of his hand.
When he cut and ran from his final candidate speech to the delegates, sending in a surrogate, that was all she wrote.
SILVER LINING: His supporters – and those of Bachmann, should she also hopefully bow out soon – need to coalesce around one candidate to put Romney clearly to the side. Of those running, *I* prefer Gingrich, but I would be happy to support Santorum, should there be clear indications of his superiority.
Rick Perry’s campaign has made every bad “optics” move they could possibly make and this is no exception.
Bachman is dropping out. She doesn’t have the money or the base of operations to continue. She, Perry and Santorum had been splitting a base three ways. It is now down to two …and THIS is the moment for Perry to tuck tail and quit?
Dumb as a stump. If there is ANY ability to coalesce ANY kind of base, it is the base that was being split three ways. Romney can’t get above 30%…which leaves a huge landscape for Perry. Gingrich is about to throw haymakers at Romney from every angle.
The Ron Paul nutjobs will still try to puke all over the Republican primary.
But, Perry had a chance to outlast Santorum. And…to wind up as the “not Romney”. Gingrich going hard negative on Romney would have helped Perry. Santorum has not gone through the “vetting gauntlet” yet. Perry had. If Santorum got bloodied….Perry would be the only non-Romney left standing.
But, his campaign has had nothing but blunders, alibis and excuses and really isn’t making any moves with the advantages he does have. In fact, it has frittered all those advantages away.
Perry is NOT my candidate of choice. Mine aren’t even running.
But, this is just plain dumb.
By dropping out…Santorum’s heartbeat ought to be going a mile a minute now. Gingrich will hammer Romney, Paul is an imbecile…and Santorum gets the the benefit of the Perry/Bachman surrender.
In essence, Santorum becomes THE non-Romney. And….Obama wins.
A fractured party straps incendiary devices to its own chest and goes in and blows itself up for the entire month of January.
This is either the dumbest group of Republicans in history at the RNC or the most brilliant.
The dumbest, if this is not intentionally misleading. Brilliant if it is part of a plan. Having seen that the party is fractured, split so badly and incapable of backing a consensus candidate…in fact, with nearly POLAR attitudes…they concocted a brilliant battleplan.
They let this “B” team take all the flak, the propaganda machine cheap shots and slander, all the heat…as a head fake. A misdirection play.
As we get to the convention, there is NOBODY on this slate who can merge, coalesce, “marry” the polar opposites on the slate. So, we draft a “hero”. He hasn’t taken months and months and months of cheap shots and propaganda.
He’s got very high “likeability” from both poles AND from the swing voters. He’s bright, articulate, can debate, has no real “negatives”, isn’t a damaged brand and isn’t seen as a lightweight.
He hasn’t had a glove lain on him…comes in fresh and takes on Obama with a clean slate.
Absolutely brilliant.
Not a chance the Republicans thought of it.
I’m not nearly as informed or adept as many PJM commenters. However, it strikes me that the only noteworthy Iowa rebuke was Bachmann, who came in last in her home state.
While I’m eager to see the field narrow, any candidate that withdraws now based on the results of such a small, comparatively inconsequential sample (aka Iowa) simply doesn’t have the drive and stick-to-it-iveness essential to beat Obama and lead this country back from the brink.
please,goodness, mr perry, stay in the race. I can’t imagine anyone else as pres, in 2013.
ya’ll. Texas is the size of France. It has a bigger economy than France. France has Sarkozy, Napoleon, Louis the Sun King, Louis the dead king, de Gaulle and Petain, Robespierre. That’s a lot of leaders, all very, very different. Perry isn’t Bush. Bush was his own guy. Perry is his own guy.
For that matter, why are Cali politicians all “wildly individual” while Texas politicians are “all the same.” Or are all Dems individuals, while Republicans are considered minions of Satan?
I want Perry to win, so the rest of the county can perk up, and renovate their own states. It’ll be fun being happy and employed together. Reagan was fun. We built businesses, and dressed like we were happy, and made optimistic music. We’ve got our Carter 2.0. A Reagan 2.0 would be a great next step.
Darn shame. Perry’s not good at debates, but I don’t need a good debater as president. I need someone who can govern, including know that (at least) there are times when government should step back. Perry does understand that. Newt gets it to a degree. Not sure about Mittens, and Santorum wants to get government in the bedroom. Ron Paul does get it, but his foreign policy is horrible and he’s dishonest about our entry into WWII. Bachmann’s got no executive experience.
problem being, with such a large federal bureaucracy even with a GOP Congress there’s still much mischief Dear Liar could do in a second term.
Perry has to drop out to preserve a chance to run in the future.
If he continues in this race and gets a mediocre result in South Carolina, he has no future prospects. On the other hand, it isn’t clear to me that he has the burning desire like Romney, or perhaps even like Santorum has.
If Santorum hadn’t risen up and Perry had beaten Newt, he would have a reason to go on, even though his odds would still be long.
But he didn’t, so he should lick his wounds and go home.
His biggest mistake was starting too think deeply about running too late in the process. He didn’t have his philisophical approach down pat at the beginning, and hadn’t assessed all of the gotchas that would be thrown at him. Maybe his success in Texas made him overconfident; or perhaps he thought his headline credentials would be enough. You don’t get too many chances to make major mistakes in national races. He made too many.
“After a pour fifth place finish” – I imagine you accidentally wrote “pour” instead of “poor” because of the proximity of the “fifth”, which one could easily pour, especially if it were a fine single malt scotch that you’d brought to my house….
Perry got in late because he was recovering from back surgery. In my opinion he came in a little too soon. When you are in pain it is hard to think and thinking on your feet is next to impossible. Each debate he got a little better. I’ve watched the videos of him in discussions of his policy ideas. He was able to articulate exactly what he would do as president and the ideas were well worth listening to. Those first few debates are being used to drag him down even though he is hitting his stride now.
When he first announced I was very interested because of his record in Texas but those first debates almost turned me off. I didn’t know at that time about the back problem. Once I learned of the surgery I realized he was fighting on two fronts. One against the other candidates and the other the pain. It was then I found the videos of him discussing his ideas and I have been a supporter ever since. For him to drop out now would be a shame, he looks like the best we have and I really don’t think “The Won” would stand a chance against him.
When you say “I am re-assessing your campaign” you are saying “I am planning to drop out.” Everybody in politics knows this, as do most amateur political observers, so I’m not sure why Perry with his seasoned campaign staff wouldn’t.
Asking voters to support you after saying you are re-assessing your campaign would be like going on a date with a girl after being told she has a really great personality. Everyone knows what that phrase really means, and it isn’t something that inspires confidence.
???
Are you saying Rick Perry is a drunk?
HINT: It’s, “poor”, not “pour”.
“Records have mattered less than bites and lines and gaffes.”
That pretty much says it all – this country no longer cares about either Character, Records or Leadership. Votes are based on dumb stuff like “can he beat X in a debate”, “his accent”, “a person from his State that was President before”, a “single issue”. The ‘entrance polls’ in Iowa listed at he bottom of the list of election criteria – only 1 in 8 thought ‘leadership and experience’ were important or influenced their vote. It was the very last ‘criteria’ they even considered important. This is exactly why this country is in so much trouble.
It’s beyond ridiculous. I don’t see a “fix” for this.